LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Madigan, Susan Louise
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: LC
The research aim was to investigate the current policy-to-practice context for\ud inclusive education in England for children with Moderate Learning\ud Difficulties (MLD). A case study of one London Borough focused on\ud mainstream and special education provision.\ud Research questions required an examination of the policy-to-practice context\ud of MLD and Bowe, Ball and Gold (1992) policy trajectory model was utilised\ud to structure the research design and frame the data gathering. This\ud facilitated an examination of contexts of policy influence, policy text\ud production and practice, where text is reinterpreted. Successive stages of\ud data gathering informed those that followed, from scrutiny of Hansard to\ud access policy influences, through analysis of changing SEN legislation, to\ud interviews with stakeholders and observations of target children with MLD.\ud Hansard texts revealed lack of clarity in SEN definitions, the statementing\ud process, parental choice and funding that led to inconsistencies in\ud interpretation of policy and inequalities in inclusive practice at local level.\ud Analysis suggested that efforts to create clarity and direction in local policy\ud were thwarted by continuing difficulties to define MLD and inclusive\ud education. Interviews indicated that educational provision for MLD children\ud was adversely affected as this inhibited identification, consistent and\ud effective interventions and thereby created possible inequities in funding\ud allocation. Whilst robust funding formulae were in place, lack of clear group\ud definition introduced a level of interpretation into the process, rendering\ud equity in funding less likely. Interviews and observation indicated tensions\ud and dilemmas were evident for practitioners in balancing the needs of all\ud pupils, allocating resources and meeting individual needs. The experience of\ud individual pupils were affected by deployment of staff, individualisation of the\ud curriculum and social inclusion with peers, in both mainstream and special\ud settings.\ud Challenges facing all those involved in taking national policy, interpreting it\ud and enacting it locally are identified and implications considered.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 12.1 What is the policy to practice context for inclusion of pupils
    • with MLD?.................................................................................................. 351
    • 12.1.1 Context of Influence.................................................................... 351
    • 12.1.2 Context of policy text production ................................................ 352
    • 12.1.3 Context of Practice ..................................................................... 354
    • 12.2 How do schools (head teachers and teachers) implement the
    • policy regarding the inclusion of pupils with MLD? .................................... 362
    • 12.3 What are the experiences of teachers and pupils with MLD in
    • special and inclusive settings? .................................................................. 367
    • 12.3.1 Classroom management ............................................................ 368
    • 12.3.3 Social aspects of education........................................................ 374
    • 12.3.4 School-parent partnership .......................................................... 375
    • 12.5 What are the views of MLD pupils of inclusion policy as
    • experienced by them? ............................................................................... 380
    • 12.6 Review of the research design ......................................................... 382
    • 12.6.1 The policy cycle as a tool for analysis ........................................ 382
    • 12.6.2 Validity, reliability and trustworthiness ........................................ 386
    • 12.6.3 Limitations of the research ......................................................... 388
    • 12.7 Implications for practice .................................................................... 389
    • 12.7.1 The Policy cycle as a tool ........................................................... 389 3.1 Settings and job roles included in the research 4.1 Hansard texts selected for the review 5.1 Bands of Learning Difficulty showing SEN included in each BLD (LA[c], 2007: 22-24) 7.1 Key features of an inclusive education 7.2 Features of MLD 7.3 The affect of the school-parent partnership on education provision 7.4 Barriers to communication 7.5 Ways in which schools include parents 7.6 Training opportunities offered (H) and training undertaken (S, T, TA) 7.7 Preparation for a child with MLD joining a class 7.8 Non-teaching activities to support children with MLD 8.1 Participants by job role and school 8.2 Characteristics of MLD 9.1 Information regarding participants‟ children 10.1 Pupil details 11.1 Pupil information 11.2 Pupils observed 11.3 Foundation Stage Target Child 11.4 Mainstream KS1 Target Child 11.5 Special School KS1 Target Child 11.6 Mainstream KS2 Target Child 11.7 Special School KS2 Target Child 11.8 Mainstream KS3 Target Child 11.9 Special School KS3 Target Child
    • 11.10 Mainstream KS4 Target Child
    • 11.11 Special School KS4 Target Child
    • Ainscow, M., Conteh, J., Dyson, A. and Gallanaugh, F. (2007). Children in
    • Cambridge: The Primary Review. (Primary Review Research Survey 5/1).
    • DES (1981) Education Act 1981. Chapter 60. London: HMSO.
    • DES (1988) Education Reform Act 1988. Chapter 40. London: HMSO.
    • DfCSF (2008) Special Educational Needs (Information) Act 2008, Chapter 11.
    • DfE (1993) Education Act 1993. Chapter 35. London: HMSO.
    • DfEE (1996) Education Act 1996. Chapter 56. London: HMSO.
    • DfES (2005). Data Collection by Type of Special Educational Need. [Online].
    • (URL http:// www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/ index.cfm?id=5352). (Accessed
    • April 16th 2006). Guidance ref: DfES-1889-2005.
    • DfES (2006) Education and Inspections Act 2006, Chapter 40. London: HMSO.
    • Wall, K. (2006). Special Needs and Early Years, A Practitioner's guide. London:
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article